Translation, Validity, and Reliability of the Chinese Version of the Breast Cancer Survivor Self-efficacy Scale in China

Abstract

Background Self-efficacy is a crucial variable that is related to quality of life. Patients who have high self-efficacy will exert sufficient effort and have better health outcomes and improved quality of life. Appropriate and precise measurement of self-efficacy can help promote better care. The Breast Cancer Survivor Self-efficacy Scale (BCSES) is designed to measure the perceived confidence of breast cancer patients in managing the tasks for self-management. Originally developed in America, it has not been used in China. Objectives The aims of this study were to translate BCSES into Chinese and assess its psychometric properties among Chinese patients. Methods In phase 1, the translation of BCSES closely followed the Principles of Good Practices. In phase 2, data on reliability and validity were evaluated in terms of internal consistency, item-total correlations, test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and construct validity. A total sample of 630 native Chinese-speaking patients from 5 hospitals in China participated, including a pilot sample of 182 and a validation sample of 448. Results Minor modifications in 5 items were recommended after translation. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested a 2-factor structure was more ideal than the original 1-factor model. Cronbach's α coefficient for the Chinese version of BCSES was .82, intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.97, and item-total correlations were from 0.61 to 0.76. Conclusions The Chinese version of BCSES appears to be culturally appropriate, reliable, and valid for assessing self-efficacy among patients with breast cancer in China. Implication for Practice The Chinese version of BCSES could help measure the breast cancer patients' self-efficacy and provide evidence to develop culturally sensitive interventions for Chinese patients.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a lymphoedema self‐management behaviour questionnaire for breast cancer patients

“…Each item was scored from 0 ( no confidence ) to 4 ( absolute confidence ). The Chinese version showed good validity and reliability for using among the breast cancer patients in mainland China, and its Cronbach's coefficient was 0.82 (Yuan et al, 2019). According to Bandura's theory of self‐efficacy and lymphoedema‐related research (Bandura, 1977; Ostby et al, 2018), self‐efficacy is an important facilitator of lymphoedema self‐management, so the Chinese Version of the Breast Cancer Survivor Self‐Efficacy Scale was used in this study to test the convergent validity of the LSMBQ.…”

Validity and Reliability of the Instruments to Measure Colorectal Cancer Screening Benefits and Barriers—Turkish Version

“…50,51 Test-retest correlations greater than 0.7 suggested adequate stability; less than 0.3, weak; and between 0.3 and 0.7, moderate and acceptable. 52 The validity of the scales was examined through CVI and exploratory factor analysis (EFA)/principal components analysis. Content validity index was used to assess the degree of consensus of experts on English and Turkish items.…”

“…Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (ranges from 0 to 1) greater than 0.50 and the result of the Bartlett test of sphericity was considered as eligible to perform EFA. 51,52…”

“…Cronbach’s α coefficients were considered acceptable if higher than 0.70 50,51 . Test-retest correlations greater than 0.7 suggested adequate stability; less than 0.3, weak; and between 0.3 and 0.7, moderate and acceptable 52 …”

Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Stoma‐QOL questionnaire among Chinese rectal cancer patients with colostomy

“…A Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index (KMO) > 0.80 and statistically significant results of the Bartlett χ 2 test indicated eligibility to perform EFA (Kaiser, 1974). The following principles were applied to obtain the best fitting structure: (a) eigenvalues >1.00; (b) Cattell scree test to determine the number of factors; (c) the percentage of total variance explained and (d) items with loadings >0.40 in absolute value (Yuan et al, 2019).…”